SURENDER KUMAR Vs. VISHAL GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 13.4.2006 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Hissar, vide which application for additional evidence moved by the tenant-petitioner herein was declined.

(2.) It was pleaded in the application that the petitioner i.e. landlord, his brother Gaurav and their father Shri Raj Kuamr, were living jointly in Katla Ram Lika, Hisar. It was averred that he received some information from Parveen Sharma on 25.1.2006 in which it was revealed that the landlord-petitioner and his brother Gaurav had filed an eviction petition against his father Sehdev in respect of ground floor of a Shop No. B-XV/21301 situated at Parijat Chowk, Hisar. It was alleged in the application that one shop of property No. 197/198/IV, situated inside Nagori Gate, Hisar, was sold by the father of the petitioner-landlord and near the said shop there were two shops of the father of the petitioner-landlord and one room and one shop near the shop in question were got vacated by the petitioner-landlord during the pendency of the present petition.

(3.) It was further the case of the tenant-petitioner that after great efforts he got a copy of sale deed No. 5293 dated 25.1.1999, certified copy of the cases Gaurav etc. v. Sehdev, decided on 5.12.2005, copy of order dated 28.9.2004 passed in the case titled Vishal Gupta v. Prem Kumar. It was also alleged that a copy of order passed in case Vishal Gupta v. Prem Kumar and a copy of order in the case Vishal Gupta v. Om Parkash have not been delivered to him so far. It was also the case of the tenant-applicant that he was not aware of the said documents prior to 25.1.2006 and as such could not produce the same in his evidence. The said documents were claimed to be necessary for just and proper adjudication of the case. It was claimed that though the sale-deed was executed by the father of the petitioner-landlord, however, the copies of the orders were inter se between the petitioner-landlord and his tenants and cannot be said to be fabricated documents. With these submissions, the applicant- tenant prayed for permission to lead additional evidence by production of these documents.